RE:2010ICRtestdataLauraK.McAfeeto:ConradChin08/16/201205:02PMChuckFrench,DarcieSmith,“BethFriedman”,JamesHagedorn,Cc:“Robertson,James”,JonathanAverback,jskonrady,nelson.brad,“RichardLunn”,thillier,“Jarrett,JamesF”,“Chakrabarty,RenuM”History:Thismessagehasbeenrepliedtoandforwarded.2attachmentsFelmanHistoricalPMDatawithStatistics.XLSXimageool.gifConrad—Iwantedtorespondtoyouremailsoverthepastfewdays.Letmestartbytryingtoclarifytheemissionsassociatedwiththeraking/skimmingprocess,asIthinkwearetalkingpasteachotherhere.Youarecorrectthatphysically,theraking/skimmingprocesshasitsown“station,”i.e.,thatitoccursatalocationthatisphysicallybetweenthetappingandcastingoperationsandsomewhatseparatefromboth.AsAmypreviouslymentioned,however,alloftheemissionscalculationsthatweperformedwerebasedonAP-42emissionsfactors.Thoseemissionsfactorsincludeallofthefugitiveemissionsassociatedwiththeentiremanufacturingprocessandallocatethemtooneofthreemainoperations:tapping,casting,andsmelting.Fortheraking/skimmingemissions,AP-42allocatedtheemissionstothecastingportionoftheprocess—sotheyareaccountedforaspartofthatlargerprocess,eveniftheyarenotcarvedoutseparately.Anotherapproachwouldbetotreattheraking/skimmingasaseparatesub-process,basedonitsseparatephysicallocation.Todothis,however,youwouldfirstneedtoidentifywhichportionofthetotalfugitiveemissionsfromthefacilityisattributabletotheraking/skimmingprocess.YouwouldthenneedtosubtractthatamountfromtheAP-42emissionsfactorsforcasting(whichiswherethoseemissionsarecurrentlyaccountedfor).Soyouwouldthenhaveemissionsfactorsthatarebrokendownintofourseparateprocesses—tapping,raking/skimming,casting,andsmelting.Butthefacility-widetotalwouldbethesame.TheissuewiththeICRdatawillrequirealittlemorediscussionbecauseoftheextensivehistoryhereandmanyissuesinvolved.Tobegin,wearesomewhatsurprisedatyourcommentthatFelmanwaitedfortwoyearsbeforementioningourconcerns,giventhatFelmanquestionedtheICRdatainitscommentsontheproposedruleinFebruaryofthisyear,andthevalidityofthosedata—especiallyrelatingtotheJuly,2010stacktests—hasbeenasignificantrecurringissueinyourdiscussionsandemailswithAmyandotherFelmanrepresentativesoverthepastseveralmonths.Nevertheless,IwillattempttosummarizethemainissuesthatIhavebeenabletoidentifyinthepastthreedays.PleasenotethatthisresponsedoesnotaddressthenewinformationyoujustprovidedabouttherecalculateddatafromNovember,2010,whichwewillneedsometimetoreview,butitdoesincludetheApril,2011stacktestresultsthatRichforwardedtoyouearliertoday.Felman’sconcernsinclude:•Theuseofthe3%manganeseconcentrationfromtheJuly2010stacktestonFurnace#2.Aswehavediscussed,wehavesignificantconcernsaboutthevalidityofthe3%manganeseconcentrationidentifiedinthattest.Eventhe2011stacktest,whichcomesclosertotheassumed3%concentrationthananyotherresultshave,identifiedmanganeseconcentrationsrangingfrom3.1%to13%—arangeof4to1,whichisahighdegreeofvariationtobasesuchasignificantruleon.Thiserrorhasbeencompoundedbyapplyingthe3%figuretothebaselineemissionsdatasetforalloftheotherfurnacesviatheuseofpollutant-to-PMratiosinconjunctionwithhistoricalstacktestdataonthosefurnaces.•TheresultsfromtheJuly2010stacktestareinternallyinconsistentinawaythatcastsdoubtonthetestingresults.Forexample,wenotethatthemeasuredflowratesdifferedbyalmostafactoroftwo,withoutanyapparentprocessreasonforthedifference.•TheresultsfromtheJuly2010stacktestsarealsoinconsistentwithotherdatafromFurnace#2.Acomparisonoftheresultsshowsthattheemissionsmeasuredduringthe2010stacktestsweremorethanafactoroftwohigherthantheresultsoftheMay2009stacktestsonthesamefurnace,againwithnoapparentprocessreasonforthedifference.Similarly,ifyoucomparetheJuly2010datatothe2011stacktestthatFelmanrecentlyprovided,theaveragePMemissionsratedifferbyafactorof37(4.65lb/hrvs.0.11lb/hr).•Thisconclusionisunderscoredwhentheresultsarecorrectedforfurnaceload.Attheoutset,wenotethatthe2010stacktestidentifiedthefurnaceloadas18MWforallthreeruns—aconsistencythatisextremelyimprobablyoverthecourseofthreeseparatefour-hourtestrunsovertwodifferentdays.Felmanhasaccordinglygonebacktothefurnaceoperatinglogstoidentifytheactualfurnaceoperatinglevelsduringthesetests,which—notsurprisingly—variedfarmorethanthetestreportwouldimply.Wethencalculatedthelb/MW-hrforeachtestruntodemonstratethetruevariabilitybetweenthe2009and2010stacktests.Asyoucanseefromtheattachedspreadsheet,thestandarddeviationwithinthetestrunsrangefrom8%to99%,andtherelativestandarddeviationofthefurnace-wideresultsrangefrom90%to120%.YoualsoaskedFelmantoconfirmthatitsconcernswerelimitedtotheFurnace2data.Thisisnotcorrect,becausemanyoftheissuesIidentifiedabovealsoapplytotheothertestdata.Specifically,Felman’sconcernsaboutthehighvariability—bothbetweendifferentrunsduringthesamestacktestandacrossmultiplestacktests—applyequallystronglytotheremainingICRdata.Theconcernsaboutvariabilityareexemplifiedbylookingatthedifferencesinemissionratesbetweenthevarioustestdatesforeachofthefurnaces.Furnace2PMemissionrateestimatesrangefrom0.11to2.06lb/hr,a42-folddifference;furnace5estimatesrangefrom0.14to3.60lb/hr,a25-folddifference;andfurnace7estimatesrangefrom0.12to5.59Ib/hr,a46-folddifference.Notethatthesedifferencesarederivedfromonlytheaverageresultsfromeachtestday;ananalysisoftheindividualrunsshowsdifferencesashighas100-fold(compareFurnace7,11/17/09,run1resultof7.95lb/hrto4/28/11run2onthesamefurnace,witharesultof0.073lb/hr).Weareattachingaspreadsheetthatdemonstratestheseissues.Topreparethisspreadsheet,Felmanfirstconfirmedthefurnaceoperatingloadforallofthetestrunsandcorrectedtheentriesthatinaccuratelyimpliedthattheloadswerethesameforallthreeruns.Wethencalculatedlb/MW-hrresultsforeachrunandrecalculatethetestaverages,whereappropriate.Theseresultsconfirmthehighdegreeofvariability.InotethatinyourTuesdayafternoone-mail,youproposetoaddresssomeofthehighvariabilitybysimplyexcludingonehighreading.Felmandisagreesstronglywiththisapproach.Felmanhaspreviouslydiscussedanynumberofreasonsforthehighinherentvariabilityinfurnaceoperations—issuessuchasthedifferenceinstoking,timingofmixaddition,andconditionofelectrodeelevation.Excludingindividualhighreadingswithout(a)identifyingaspecifictestingerrorthatcausedtheelevatedreading,and(b)similarlyexcludingindividuallowreadingswillartificiallybiastheultimateresultstowardaloweroverallemissionsrate—withoutactuallyaddressinganyoftheunderlyingreasonswhythedatawereinappropriatelyloworhighinthefirstcase(e.g.,testingerrors,highlyvariableoperatingconditions).Felmandoesnotbelieveitisappropriatetocherry-pickthedatamerelybecauseoneresultappearstoohighortoolow.IfyouinsistonproceedingonthebasisoftheexistingICRdata,amoreappropriateapproachwouldbetoincludealloftheavailablereadingsandthenincludeahighconfidenceinterval,basedontheveryhighvariabilitywithinthedataset.Ofcourse,aswehavealreadydiscussed,Felmanbelievesthemostappropriateapproachwouldbetowaitjustafewmoreweeksuntiltheresultsofthecurrentstacktestsareavailable.Itisdisheartening,tosaytheleast,tohearthatyouareunwillingtowaitforsuchashortperiodoftimetoobtaintheseresults.Asyouknow,FelmanwassoconcernedaboutthereliabilityoftheICRdatathatitofferedtoperformthesestacktests,atitsownsignificantcost,forthesolepurposeofprovidingreliabledatathatwouldassistEPAindevelopingasoundrule.FelmanhasdiscussedeveryaspectofthesetestswithEPA,includingvariousdiscussionsoftestmethodsandprotocolsinordertoensurethatthedataobtainedwereasaccurateaspossible.EPAknewthatthesetestswerescheduledforJulyandAugust—andyet,eventhoughtheAgencywasoperatingunderaSeptember15thdeadline,notoncedidEPAsuggestthatthetestdatebemoveduporthattheAgencymightnothavetimetoconsiderthedata.Frankly,Felmandoesnotunderstandwhythisissuehasarisenonlyaftertherulemakingdeadlinehasbeenextendedbymorethanthreemonths—andaftertheCompanyhasinvested$85,000onthesevoluntaryteststhatitcannotrecoup.IamsureyouwillunderstandthatmanyFelmanrepresentativesare,atbest,extremelydisappointedwiththisconclusion.Felmancontinuestobelievethateveryone’sinterests—EPAs,Felman’s,andtheSierraClub—arebestservedbyarulethatisgroundedinsolid,reliabledata.Indeed,weunderstandthattheissueofthedearthofreliabledatawasraisednotjustbyFelman,butbySierraClubaswell(andwilllikelycontinuetocomeupinfuturediscussionsbetweenalloftheparties).Wethereforesincerelyhopethat,afterallofthesemonthsofdiscussion,EPAwillnotrushtojudgmentnowthatthesedatawillsosoonbeavailable.Thanks,andIhopeyouenjoyyourtimeoff.Welookforwardtocontinuingourdiscussionsuponyourreturn.LauraLauraK.McAfeePrincipalBeveridge&Diamond,P.C.201NorthCharlesSt.Suite2210Baltimore,MD21201/T(410)230-1330F(410)230-1389ILMcAfee@Thdlawcorn&D1AMOND

# Felman Furnaces #2, 5, 7

Run Number Date Sampling Location Furnace Load

(MW) PM

Concentration

(gr/dscf) PM Emissions

(lb/hr) Average Test

PM

Concentration

(gr/dscf) Average Test

PM Emissions

(lb/hr) Average Test

(lb/hr/MW) LAN Review of Furnace Load Based

on Felman Records Furnace Load

(MW) by LAN Ratio of PM to

Energy Used

(lb/hr/MW) by

LAN

1 5/21/2009 Furnace #2 Baghouse Outlet 18.80 0.000338 1.33 0.071 Confirmed* 18.80 0.071

2 5/21/2009 Furnace #2 Baghouse Outlet 16.90 0.000650 2.36 0.140 Confirmed* 16.90 0.140

3 5/21/2009 Furnace #2 Baghouse Outlet 17.66 0.000652 2.49 0.000547 2.06 0.141 Confirmed* 17.66 0.141

1 7/9/2010 Furnace #2 Baghouse Outlet 18.00 0.001044 6.20 0.344 Should be approximately 22 MW** 22.00 0.282

2 7/9/2010 Furnace #2 Baghouse Outlet 18.00 0.000541 2.59 0.144 Should be approximately 22 MW** 22.00 0.118

3 7/10/2010 Furnace #2 Baghouse Outlet 18.00 0.001631 5.15 0.001072 4.65 0.286 Should be approximately 27.5 MW** 27.50 0.187

1 4/26/2011 Furnace #2 Baghouse Outlet 27.34 0.000900 0.10 0.004 27.34 0.004

2 4/26/2011 Furnace #2 Baghouse Outlet 22.50 0.000900 0.09 0.000 22.50 0.004

3 4/26/2011 Furnace #2 Baghouse Outlet 28.75 0.001500 0.14 0.001100 0.11 0.000 28.75 0.005

1 10/29/2007 Furnace #5 Baghouse Outlet 12.69 0.002617 7.03 0.554 Confirmed* 12.69 0.554

2 10/30/2007 Furnace #5 Baghouse Outlet 13.34 0.000664 1.81 0.136 Confirmed* 13.34 0.136

3 10/30/2007 Furnace #5 Baghouse Outlet 13.47 0.000793 1.95 0.001358 3.60 0.145 Confirmed* 13.47 0.145

1 11/17/2008 Furnace #5 Baghouse Outlet 16.74 0.000499 1.44 0.086 Should be approximately 14.04 MW** 14.04 0.103

2 11/17/2008 Furnace #5 Baghouse Outlet 16.74 0.000166 0.31 0.019 Should be approximately 15.04 MW** 15.04 0.021

3 11/17/2008 Furnace #5 Baghouse Outlet 16.74 0.000287 0.30 0.000317 0.68 0.018 Should be approximately 14.61 MW** 14.61 0.021

1 11/18/2009 Furnace #5 Baghouse Outlet 14.76 0.001411 4.80 0.325 Confirmed* 14.76 0.325

2 11/18/2009 Furnace #5 Baghouse Outlet 14.99 0.001430 4.92 0.328 Confirmed* 14.99 0.328

3 11/18/2009 Furnace #5 Baghouse Outlet 15.04 0.000254 0.93 0.001032 3.55 0.062 Confirmed* 15.04 0.062

1 4/27/2011 Furnace #5 Baghouse Outlet 15.40 0.002700 0.17 0.011 15.40 0.011

2 4/27/2011 Furnace #5 Baghouse Outlet 13.75 0.002400 0.13 0.009 13.75 0.009

3 4/27/2011 Furnace #5 Baghouse Outlet 12.55 0.002300 0.13 0.002467 0.14 0.010 12.55 0.010

1 11/18/2008 Furnace #7 Baghouse Outlet 18.60 0.000216 0.80 0.043 Should be approximately 16.08 MW** 16.08 0.050

2 11/18/2008 Furnace #7 Baghouse Outlet 18.60 0.000383 1.10 0.059 Should be approximately 15.99 MW** 15.99 0.069

3 11/18/2008 Furnace #7 Baghouse Outlet 18.60 0.000675 1.80 0.000425 1.23 0.097 Should be approximately 15.05 MW** 15.05 0.120

1 11/17/2009 Furnace #7 Baghouse Outlet 14.91 0.002457 7.95 0.533 Confirmed* 14.91 0.533

2 11/17/2009 Furnace #7 Baghouse Outlet 13.83 0.001524 5.08 0.367 Confirmed* 13.83 0.367

3 11/17/2009 Furnace #7 Baghouse Outlet 13.70 0.001118 3.73 0.001700 5.59 0.272 Confirmed* 13.70 0.272

1 4/28/2011 Furnace #7 Baghouse Outlet 12.80 0.001700 0.14 0.011 12.80 0.011

2 4/28/2011 Furnace #7 Baghouse Outlet 15.30 0.001000 0.07 0.005 15.30 0.005

3 4/28/2011 Furnace #7 Baghouse Outlet 15.4 0.0024 0.1536 0.001700 0.12 0.010 15.40 0.010

loads were calculated from the daily furnace records for the stack test dates, averaged over the time frame during which each run was conducted

* Confirmed by looking at daily furnace records (2007 and November, 2009, records were included in the stack test reports)

# Run

Number Date Sampling Location PM Emissions

(lb/hr) Average PM

Emissions

(lb/hr) Relative

Standard

Deviation Average of

Furnace PM

(lb/hr)

1 5/21/2009 1.33

2 5/21/2009 2.36 2.06

3 5/21/2009 2.49

1 7/9/2010 6.20

2 7/9/2010 2.59 4.65

3 7/10/2010 5.15

1 4/26/2011 0.104

2 4/26/2011 0.089 0.11

3 4/26/2011 0.139

1 10/29/2007 7.03

2 10/30/2007 1.81 3.60

3 10/30/2007 1.95

1 11/17/2008 1.44

2 11/17/2008 0.31 0.68

3 11/17/2008 0.30

1 11/18/2009 4.80

2 11/18/2009 4.92 3.55

3 11/18/2009 0.93

1 4/27/2011 0.166

2 4/27/2011 0.126 0.14

3 4/27/2011 0.126

1 11/18/2008 0.80

2 11/18/2008 1.10 1.23

3 11/18/2008 1.80

1 11/17/2009 7.95

2 11/17/2009 5.08 5.59

3 11/17/2009 3.73

1 4/28/2011 0.137

2 4/28/2011 0.073 0.12

3 4/28/2011 0.154 2.27

1.99

2.31 40% 31%

Furnace #2 Baghouse Outlet

Furnace #5 Baghouse Outlet

Furnace #7 Baghouse Outlet 23%

17%

35% 39% 42% 64% 96% 83%

# Relative Standard

Deviation of

Furnace

97%

117%

118%

# Run

Number Date Sampling Location to Energy

Used

(lb/MWh) Relative

Standard

Deviation Average of

Furnace PM

(lb/MWh) Relative Standard

Deviation of

Furnace

1 5/21/2009 0.071

2 5/21/2009 0.140

3 5/21/2009 0.141

1 7/9/2010 0.344

2 7/9/2010 0.144

3 7/10/2010 0.286

1 4/26/2011 0.004

2 4/26/2011 0.000

3 4/26/2011 0.000

1 10/29/2007 0.554

2 10/30/2007 0.136

3 10/30/2007 0.145

1 11/17/2008 0.086

2 11/17/2008 0.019

3 11/17/2008 0.018

1 11/18/2009 0.325

2 11/18/2009 0.328

3 11/18/2009 0.062

1 4/27/2011 0.011

2 4/27/2011 0.009

3 4/27/2011 0.010

1 11/18/2008 0.043

2 11/18/2008 0.059

3 11/18/2008 0.097

1 11/17/2009 0.533

2 11/17/2009 0.367

3 11/17/2009 0.272

1 4/28/2011 0.011

2 4/28/2011 0.005

3 4/28/2011 0.010 Furnace #2 Baghouse Outlet 0.13 99%

Furnace #5 Baghouse Outlet 0.14 122% 40%

167%

8% 34%

86%

96%

64%

Furnace #7 Baghouse Outlet 42%

0.16 123% 34%

38%

# Run

Number Date Sampling Location to Energy

Used

(lb/MWh) Relative

Standard

Deviation Average of

Furnace PM

(lb/MWh) Relative Standard

Deviation of

Furnace

1 5/21/2009 0.071

2 5/21/2009 0.140

3 5/21/2009 0.141

1 7/9/2010 0.282

2 7/9/2010 0.118

3 7/10/2010 0.187

1 4/26/2011 0.004

2 4/26/2011 0.004

3 4/26/2011 0.005

1 10/29/2007 0.554

2 10/30/2007 0.136

3 10/30/2007 0.145

1 11/17/2008 0.103

2 11/17/2008 0.021

3 11/17/2008 0.021

1 11/18/2009 0.325

2 11/18/2009 0.328

3 11/18/2009 0.062

1 4/27/2011 0.011

2 4/27/2011 0.009

3 4/27/2011 0.010

1 11/18/2008 0.050

2 11/18/2008 0.069

3 11/18/2008 0.120

1 11/17/2009 0.533

2 11/17/2009 0.367

3 11/17/2009 0.272

1 4/28/2011 0.011

2 4/28/2011 0.005

3 4/28/2011 0.010 Furnace #2 Baghouse Outlet 0.11 90%

Furnace #5 Baghouse Outlet 0.14 120% 42%

13%

8% 34%

86%

99%

64%

Furnace #7 Baghouse Outlet 45%

0.16 118% 34%

38%